(March 26, 2020 at 10:55 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

Quote:as i pointed out the word was coined by karl popper to support his philosophy of science which all scientific discovery and study are conducted under. HE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS FALSIFICATION TO PROVE SUBJECTS NOT SCIENCE/Covered under the philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science. Not science. Philosophy.

It's true that philosophy of science is not science. 

Science works extremely well because it deals only with certain types of questions, which can be addressed in certain ways. Things we test scientifically must be investigated with empirical evidence in repeatable experiments with quantifiable results. But that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to deal with philosophical questions also.

For example, if you want to say that science is a better way to spend your time than philosophy, that's a philosophical statement. It can't be demonstrated with a repeatable empirical quantifiable test, so it's not science. It addresses values about how best to spend our time, what kinds of results are good to get, and ultimately how it is best to live one's life. Those are all philosophical issues. So whether you like it or not, when you say that science is better than philosophy, you're doing philosophy. 

But the philosophy of science, in particular, has helped people to think about why science is good. And helped to draw the line between real science and pseudo-science. If you feel that's an important line, then what Popper wrote is good to have.

As a useful example, there's the case of Sigmund Freud. When he started he was trained as an MD and wanted to do scientific psychology. It didn't work out that way. And thanks to Popper it's easy for us to see why Freud's conclusions aren't science. It's because they aren't falsifiable. No matter what objection a person makes to Freud's theories, the true believer can always answer that the objection doesn't strike at the heart of things. They can say that people object out of a desire to avoid uncomfortable truths, and so any objection, while seeming to render Freud unbelievable, is actually vindication -- because the person objecting is seeking to protect himself. In short, there is no question which, when answered, shows Freud's theory to be wrong. This is what falsifiability means, so Freud's work isn't science. 

Having clear boundaries like this between science and pseudo-science protects and clarifies the important work that real science does.

This guy:
Wow! Do you get more and more stupid with each word you utter?

arewethereyet:
Ahem...have you listened to Trump?

Some people just can't help it.

Come to think of it, I've never seen drick and trump together.

It's taken me two days and I still can't parse Drich the bitch' post.

You wouldn't have any rock crack to help with that?

(March 27, 2020 at 6:36 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Also, philosophy has never discovered a truth about physical reality. Only science has.

This is a philosophical statement.

(March 27, 2020 at 7:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 27, 2020 at 6:36 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Also, philosophy has never discovered a truth about physical reality. Only science has.

This is a philosophical statement.

What can I say?

(March 27, 2020 at 9:02 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(March 27, 2020 at 7:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This is a philosophical statement.

What can I say?

Admit it! You like doing philosophy!

(March 27, 2020 at 9:05 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 27, 2020 at 9:02 pm)chimp3 Wrote: What can I say?

Admit it! You like doing philosophy!

Only Amateur Philosophy! Or Roaring Drunk Philosophy!

(March 26, 2020 at 7:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: I happen not to believe that aliens crashed at Roswell. The fact that it isn't falsifiable, though, doesn't mean people will certainly lack all reason to believe it.

Well there was supposed to be a crash and physical evidence left behind that was covered up by the "man".
If the evidence for the crash turns out to be wrong and the physical evidence proves to be something else then it would be falsifiable.

Enough unfettered research could falsify the claim is what I'm saying.

(March 26, 2020 at 7:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: There may be mountains of circumstantial evidence -- enough to persuade even a reasonable person. And even if you think that in the Roswell case there isn't enough evidence, there may be in other cases. 

Each claim has to be taken on its own merits and investigated if one had sufficient evidence then it would be taken seriously.

(March 26, 2020 at 7:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: Metaphysical statements operate this way, too. The existence of eternal transcendent intelligibles may be unfalsifiable, but millennia of logical argument have persuaded some people. It's not a question for science, but that doesn't mean it's not something you can have a reasonable debate about, and something you may form [tentative] beliefs about.

Arguments are not evidence.